I know there's got to be a lot more involved with buying/owning an island than just coming up with the money (a boat, for one), but it's fun to think about the fact that you can buy an island in Maine for roughly what a decent house costs around a lot of major cities in the US.
Granted, the really nice islands with really nice houses on them will cost a heck of a lot more, but it's still fun to think about.
Why? Why does there have to be a lot more? Sure, there is a but of paperwork, and taxes. And of course finding an island. But you don't even need a boat.
Now, there may be more involved in using the island, especially if no infrastructure exists.
I know you don't need a boat, but it would certainly help. I wouldn't want to rely on someone else to get me on and off the island, especially in an emergency. Even if you don't own a boat, you still need to keep a dock in working condition. Oh, and if you do have a boat, that's another thing to maintain. And a boat isn't going to get you to the grocery store (unless there's a canal. Or an inlet. Or a fjord).
I keep thinking about things like maintenance. If you need a new roof, you've got to find a roofer willing to load up a boat full of shingles, ladders and a roofing crew. That's going to increase the cost.
And then there's insurance. I imagine that standard homeowners insurance isn't going to cover you quite like it would elsewhere.
I have a friend who lives in a house near a mountain top, in the middle of a forest. There is a road leading to it, but you need a good 4x4 car to get there(no, a BMW X6 or Audi Q7 will not get there without destroying the underbody), and between November-March you can't drive at all due to snow - to get anything up the mountain they actually use a horse-drawn sled(and the horse if nearly drowning in snow anyway).
And you know what? He has electricity,and internet, and fresh water. He managed to convince the utility company to lie down cables all the way to his house, and uses a well for water. He has house insurance. As for roof/maintenance problems - he just brings the workers up in his own car during the summer. He even gets post(in the summer, but the postman is a seasoned hiker) and has an actual address.
Compared to this, I think owning a boat is actually less trouble.
Laphroaig does something like this for their fan club. Sign up and you get a plot of land for life on their grounds. For rent they will pay you a dram whisky annually, but you have to go collect it in person. They are located on the Isle of Isley off the coast of Scotland, so unfortunately I haven't been able to collect my rent yet. Hopefully someday.
Someone who used to work at the Scotch Malt Whisky Society in Edinburgh told me that the exact size of a dram is a covenant between the barkeep and their customer ;)
Don't tell them that on Islay. I upset the guide at Ardbeg by pointing this out, who called me a "typical British imperialist, what are you going to do, tax it, sassenach?!".
It was a big surprise to receive that in the mail. Wasn't sure if it was a joke or serious but after looking for it on Google maps I think I have a future trip planned.
They probably spent less to buy the entire island of Hawaii 2 than it costs to buy the average house on Oahu or Maui.
Bonus: I now own land on Maui, Hawaii 2, and Islay. Luckily two of these do not require taxes and one provides rent that can be redeemed in person in the form of a dram of Laphroaig.
> Ronald Bottrell, my source at Quaker Oats, said that in the early 1960s, all the land reverted to Canadian-government ownership. The reason: nonpayment of taxes.
> ``The individuals who had received the deeds in the cereal boxes had become the owners of the land,`` Bottrell said. ``Obviously, none of them ever paid taxes on it. So the ownership of the land went back to Canada. The promotion was long over, anyway.``
> Although the deeds were a campaign promotion, many people took ownership of the land seriously. One man wrote Quaker Oats to announce that he had collected 10,800 deeds and was now the owner of 75 square feet of land. Another man, accused of murdering his wife, used his deeds to secure the services of a defense lawyer. The lawyer asked to be excused from the case when he learned the land consisted of 1,000 inches.
It sounds like CAH is holding the land on behalf of the people who actually "own" it, to prevent the taxes thing or something similar from happening? Interesting, either way, to see the possible ramifications. I still think it's a cool idea, though.
[Edit: The flagkilled comment referenced accusations levied against Max Temkin and showed us examples of conferences barring him from attendance.]
Of all the things the Internet has given us, a broader platform for accusations without conviction, but which nonetheless unconditionally yield consequences for the accused, scare me the most for the future. It is absolutely and mortally frightening what we are becoming.
To be crystal clear, this isn't about sexual assault (though that is potent) or any of the specifics, nor is it about the Internet, nor is it about technology, even. I am saying the choice of victims in all walks of life to publicize unarguable, indefensible, unproven accusations via social media (and, recently, traditional journalism) and not pursue remedy through the established system creates a worrying future. That a certain camp of people worships at this altar of "coming forward," as long as it's publicly, and portrays it as a necessary and important step to seeking justice is even more worrying and damaging to society at large. I'm not talking about the Internet. I'm saying the growth of this phenomenon has a direct, real, and unprecedented impact on how we interact as human beings, and nobody seems to realize this or care much for it.
Not long ago in our history, a mere remark from a monarch was enough to see you beheaded. Now, if someone sets their sights on you, there is nothing you can do but react, just as then, as they steer the hatred of countless folks toward you and attack your self, your feelings, and your livelihood. Watching some people who have been on the receiving end of this, I pray every day that I do not become a target. An acquaintance was accused in public of a horrible act and eventually vindicated when the evidence came forward, yet multiple people still e-mail his employers to make sure they're aware of who, they say, the company chose to hire. We share a planet with people who digest accusations and e-mail employers after accepting the facts they want.
We are regressing. Just look. They raised protest at a conference inviting Max because someone said something. That's all. That created a situation where Max couldn't attend. That's the sort of outcome that you should expect to count on after a group of your peers has reviewed the case in full and heard from witnesses, not a single narrative taken at face value on the Internet. And the people raising social NIMBYism masked as being uncomfortable are entirely complicit in this.
In Max's original response, I was outright stunned to read the leading tweet. "Today I learned: Max Temkin raped a friend of my friend." Notice the tweet does not use phrases like "was accused." To this person, the event happened. There is no doubt; that person skipped right over doubt and arrived at an outcome, which they will undoubtedly repeat to anybody within earshot upon hearing his name, that Max Temkin is a rapist, based on a single narrative with no evidence from a removed third party.
Cognizant of the fact that the camp in favor of this will color my comments as calling the accuser a liar, though I am not: apparently all I need to do, now, to psychologically and emotionally attack someone by proxy, is create a convincing narrative that cannot be proven or disproven and was never tried before a jury and make sure it gets as widely circulated as possible, then sit back and watch people play the concern card like this.
I would say this exact same thing if the accused were a woman, a person of color, or any other human being.
comparing someone being excluded from a social gathering to being summarily executed is pretty fucking distasteful. in my view taking the accusations of abuse victims seriously is a sign of progress. no heads are rolling.
> comparing someone being excluded from a social gathering to being summarily executed is pretty fucking distasteful.
The retribution from those who act upon these accusations almost universally targets a livelihood. I gave one example and have heard even worse ones. I have also been the victim of false accusation, which resulted in me acquiring a stalker who has performed some of these tricks on me. Luckily, that has been limited to one crazy, and I cannot express to you how anxious I am that it's not many more people.
Imagine an entire group of people outright working to deny you the ability to feed yourself and, potentially, your family, then tell me it's a distasteful comparison.
I'm not allowed to say any of this based on the rules of this discussion, by the way. I just sit back and look at all the people who stood by Jackie in spite of any of the plethora of ways that story began to fall apart, and I shake my head. Doubt is a thing of the past, and that frightens me. Truly. I think it's going to be an extreme social issue going forward.
You seem to think it's a good idea to summarily believe accusations with no evidence and no attempt to involve the legal system and convict someone in the court of public opinion just because somebody said something. People lose their livelihoods over this. People could get kicked out onto the street.
When someone is raped, they aren't ostracized from society, and they don't spend the next five or ten years in prison, and unable to find work for the rest of their lives.
In other words "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply when we sympathise with the victim?
Bullshit. Sexual abuse is a horrible crime and that it is so difficult to prove makes it only worse, but although we should take allegations seriously, they're just that: allegations, not a verdict or judgement.
If we condemn alleged criminals based on allegations alone, we might as well just start lynching people again. Taking an alleged victim serious is not the same as treating allegations as undisputed fact. It means assuming they're honest and not just seeking dramatic effect.
The reason banning him from the event was inappropriate was not that the victim hadn't pressed charges or wasn't credible. It's that the alleged rape took place a decade ago and the outrage calling for his ban was entirely based on hearsay (essentially "someone called this guy a rapist, so you should treat him as a convicted sexual predator").
Accusations should be taken seriously. Taking them seriously means investigating them, it means not blaming or shaming the accuser, and fixing the serious flaws in how our legal system manages to do the aforementioned things.
The goal here is that the legal system should be a safe and effective vessel for identifying valid accusations and punishing offenders, not that the accusations should be turned by society into a verdict.
'innocent until proven guilty' is a legal principle, not a social one. i'll err on the side of a victim any day of the week if there's not a very compelling reason not to
Sure, you can do that, as long as you don't take direct actions (i.e. any form of vigilantism, including making the accusations any more public than necessary to press charges) against the accused based on that sympathy.
Just look at the development of the Rolling Stone rape story[0] for an example of why it's a bad idea to take direct action against someone based merely on accusations.
Rape, just like child abuse, is such a terrible crime that in our society mere allegations are treated as fact -- even when they are proven false and even when a trial establishes innocence (not simply reasonable doubt). Heck, the social effects are so dire, the social punishment can last for a lifetime, regardless of the actual sentence.
It's never justified to risk ruining an innocent person's life. This is why we grant the state the monopoly of violence: because any individual is far too emotional, irrational and unreliable to be trusted with taking matters into their own hands.
there is no reason to assume the role of the aggressors in the rolling stone case; you're buying into the defense's proposition with no reason outside of being a dude. besides that you're going with 'women are emotional and unreliable' on a goddamn whim exactly how they want you to be played, because you can't break out of gender stereotypes
I'm sorry if I misunderstood this article.. but they took their $70k of profit and donated it to wikimedia, then took all profit from the 'gift' idea and bought an island.
So these dudes essentially give away the vast majority of their profit yeah? What am I missing? Don't get me wrong, it's incredible.. but at the end of the day, very few forms of altruism exists and I feel like I'm overlooking some part of the equation. Where's the sinister ending? :)
I'd say nearly every move the CAH folks make is some form of nontraditional marketing. Sure, buying an island may seem like just throwing away profit, but the amount of buzz and fan loyalty generated by that sort of stunt is a big part of what keeps their brand relevant & growing.
You could argue that their entire holiday promotion is really an exercise in marketing, and that they've already written off any profit from it as part of their marketing budget. Their business is selling the boxed card game, rather than gimmicky promotions.
This remembered me of a nobility title scam coming from Scotland.
In Scotland for some weird combinations of their laws, and UK laws that I don't remember properly anymore, anyone can get a "nobility" title by owning land there, except UK laws say nobles are only those that can be peers in the parliament (House of Lords), and that scottish title is NOT one of them.
Some scammers then sell those titles attached to a square foot of land, and charge crazy prices (ie: much, much, much more than buying a square land of foot yourself in Scotland), then claim the buyer is an actual noble (like I said, the buyer isn't, although the title IS legitimate, in UK it does not count as a nobility title)
People that work with actual nobility title frequently get annoyed with those scammers and try to convince UK government to shut them down.
51 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 116 ms ] threadGranted, the really nice islands with really nice houses on them will cost a heck of a lot more, but it's still fun to think about.
Even if buying an island isn't in the cards, it really is a beautiful place, and worth a visit.
Oh, and poutine and cheap lobster rolls everywhere.
I keep thinking about things like maintenance. If you need a new roof, you've got to find a roofer willing to load up a boat full of shingles, ladders and a roofing crew. That's going to increase the cost.
And then there's insurance. I imagine that standard homeowners insurance isn't going to cover you quite like it would elsewhere.
And you know what? He has electricity,and internet, and fresh water. He managed to convince the utility company to lie down cables all the way to his house, and uses a well for water. He has house insurance. As for roof/maintenance problems - he just brings the workers up in his own car during the summer. He even gets post(in the summer, but the postman is a seasoned hiker) and has an actual address.
Compared to this, I think owning a boat is actually less trouble.
I'm Glaswegian.
Bonus: I now own land on Maui, Hawaii 2, and Islay. Luckily two of these do not require taxes and one provides rent that can be redeemed in person in the form of a dram of Laphroaig.
Now the page is down but it was archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20140820193302/http://www.vladi-...
I don't know if they actually paid 200 000$ but I doubt they paid more considering their budget.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-07-07/features/87021...
Here's what happened:
> Ronald Bottrell, my source at Quaker Oats, said that in the early 1960s, all the land reverted to Canadian-government ownership. The reason: nonpayment of taxes.
> ``The individuals who had received the deeds in the cereal boxes had become the owners of the land,`` Bottrell said. ``Obviously, none of them ever paid taxes on it. So the ownership of the land went back to Canada. The promotion was long over, anyway.``
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klondike_Big_Inch_Land_Promotio...
More:
> Although the deeds were a campaign promotion, many people took ownership of the land seriously. One man wrote Quaker Oats to announce that he had collected 10,800 deeds and was now the owner of 75 square feet of land. Another man, accused of murdering his wife, used his deeds to secure the services of a defense lawyer. The lawyer asked to be excused from the case when he learned the land consisted of 1,000 inches.
http://articles.dailypress.com/2000-04-04/features/000403013...
http://articles.mcall.com/2008-04-29/features/4064347_1_yuko...
https://twitter.com/nzle/status/502928099164815362
http://blog.xoxofest.com/max
http://blog.maxistentialism.com/post/91476212698/this-is-a-b...
Given how little we know, it's impossible to know what happened or who is right and who is wrong.
Of all the things the Internet has given us, a broader platform for accusations without conviction, but which nonetheless unconditionally yield consequences for the accused, scare me the most for the future. It is absolutely and mortally frightening what we are becoming.
To be crystal clear, this isn't about sexual assault (though that is potent) or any of the specifics, nor is it about the Internet, nor is it about technology, even. I am saying the choice of victims in all walks of life to publicize unarguable, indefensible, unproven accusations via social media (and, recently, traditional journalism) and not pursue remedy through the established system creates a worrying future. That a certain camp of people worships at this altar of "coming forward," as long as it's publicly, and portrays it as a necessary and important step to seeking justice is even more worrying and damaging to society at large. I'm not talking about the Internet. I'm saying the growth of this phenomenon has a direct, real, and unprecedented impact on how we interact as human beings, and nobody seems to realize this or care much for it.
Not long ago in our history, a mere remark from a monarch was enough to see you beheaded. Now, if someone sets their sights on you, there is nothing you can do but react, just as then, as they steer the hatred of countless folks toward you and attack your self, your feelings, and your livelihood. Watching some people who have been on the receiving end of this, I pray every day that I do not become a target. An acquaintance was accused in public of a horrible act and eventually vindicated when the evidence came forward, yet multiple people still e-mail his employers to make sure they're aware of who, they say, the company chose to hire. We share a planet with people who digest accusations and e-mail employers after accepting the facts they want.
We are regressing. Just look. They raised protest at a conference inviting Max because someone said something. That's all. That created a situation where Max couldn't attend. That's the sort of outcome that you should expect to count on after a group of your peers has reviewed the case in full and heard from witnesses, not a single narrative taken at face value on the Internet. And the people raising social NIMBYism masked as being uncomfortable are entirely complicit in this.
In Max's original response, I was outright stunned to read the leading tweet. "Today I learned: Max Temkin raped a friend of my friend." Notice the tweet does not use phrases like "was accused." To this person, the event happened. There is no doubt; that person skipped right over doubt and arrived at an outcome, which they will undoubtedly repeat to anybody within earshot upon hearing his name, that Max Temkin is a rapist, based on a single narrative with no evidence from a removed third party.
Cognizant of the fact that the camp in favor of this will color my comments as calling the accuser a liar, though I am not: apparently all I need to do, now, to psychologically and emotionally attack someone by proxy, is create a convincing narrative that cannot be proven or disproven and was never tried before a jury and make sure it gets as widely circulated as possible, then sit back and watch people play the concern card like this.
I would say this exact same thing if the accused were a woman, a person of color, or any other human being.
The retribution from those who act upon these accusations almost universally targets a livelihood. I gave one example and have heard even worse ones. I have also been the victim of false accusation, which resulted in me acquiring a stalker who has performed some of these tricks on me. Luckily, that has been limited to one crazy, and I cannot express to you how anxious I am that it's not many more people.
Imagine an entire group of people outright working to deny you the ability to feed yourself and, potentially, your family, then tell me it's a distasteful comparison.
I'm not allowed to say any of this based on the rules of this discussion, by the way. I just sit back and look at all the people who stood by Jackie in spite of any of the plethora of ways that story began to fall apart, and I shake my head. Doubt is a thing of the past, and that frightens me. Truly. I think it's going to be an extreme social issue going forward.
You seem to think it's a good idea to summarily believe accusations with no evidence and no attempt to involve the legal system and convict someone in the court of public opinion just because somebody said something. People lose their livelihoods over this. People could get kicked out onto the street.
Do you think that nobody could do that to you?
Bullshit. Sexual abuse is a horrible crime and that it is so difficult to prove makes it only worse, but although we should take allegations seriously, they're just that: allegations, not a verdict or judgement.
If we condemn alleged criminals based on allegations alone, we might as well just start lynching people again. Taking an alleged victim serious is not the same as treating allegations as undisputed fact. It means assuming they're honest and not just seeking dramatic effect.
The reason banning him from the event was inappropriate was not that the victim hadn't pressed charges or wasn't credible. It's that the alleged rape took place a decade ago and the outrage calling for his ban was entirely based on hearsay (essentially "someone called this guy a rapist, so you should treat him as a convicted sexual predator").
Accusations should be taken seriously. Taking them seriously means investigating them, it means not blaming or shaming the accuser, and fixing the serious flaws in how our legal system manages to do the aforementioned things.
The goal here is that the legal system should be a safe and effective vessel for identifying valid accusations and punishing offenders, not that the accusations should be turned by society into a verdict.
Just look at the development of the Rolling Stone rape story[0] for an example of why it's a bad idea to take direct action against someone based merely on accusations.
Rape, just like child abuse, is such a terrible crime that in our society mere allegations are treated as fact -- even when they are proven false and even when a trial establishes innocence (not simply reasonable doubt). Heck, the social effects are so dire, the social punishment can last for a lifetime, regardless of the actual sentence.
It's never justified to risk ruining an innocent person's life. This is why we grant the state the monopoly of violence: because any individual is far too emotional, irrational and unreliable to be trusted with taking matters into their own hands.
[0]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternit...
So these dudes essentially give away the vast majority of their profit yeah? What am I missing? Don't get me wrong, it's incredible.. but at the end of the day, very few forms of altruism exists and I feel like I'm overlooking some part of the equation. Where's the sinister ending? :)
[citation needed]
http://voices.suntimes.com/business-2/grid/cards-against-hum...
In Scotland for some weird combinations of their laws, and UK laws that I don't remember properly anymore, anyone can get a "nobility" title by owning land there, except UK laws say nobles are only those that can be peers in the parliament (House of Lords), and that scottish title is NOT one of them.
Some scammers then sell those titles attached to a square foot of land, and charge crazy prices (ie: much, much, much more than buying a square land of foot yourself in Scotland), then claim the buyer is an actual noble (like I said, the buyer isn't, although the title IS legitimate, in UK it does not count as a nobility title)
People that work with actual nobility title frequently get annoyed with those scammers and try to convince UK government to shut them down.
We'll have to add this to our spots and check it out...
Also, there was an article a while back on HN about some friends who bought an island: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6395148
Wonder how that's going... http://tynan.com/island2